Re: F=ma

["James S. Marsh" <jsmarsh@UWF.EDU>]

Bertrand Russell, "On the notion of cause, with applictions to the
Free-Will Problem."

This is reprinted in H. Feigl and M. Brodbeck, "Readings in the Philosophy
of Science", Appleton-Century-Crofts, Inc. (New York, 1953)

In a nutshell, Russell argues that all physics gives us is functional
relationships.
We like to think that A causes B, while physics simply says A=B.  But,
equivalently,
then B=A, so that we should conclude that B causes A.   Thus, as seen by
physics,
the notion of causality loses its meaning, if not its usefulness.   All that is
left is functional relationships.

I hope I haven't butchered Russell's argument too much.  JSM

> I've always looked at Newton's second law as being somehow incomplete.
> It does not include what I consider to be a causal element. Forces do
> cause accelerations, at least that is what my intuition tells me, or I
> was successfully brainwashed a long time ago. (This latter possibility
> is often referred to as "common sense".) Newton's law, especially
> written with a "coefficient of inertia", the mass, does not imply that
> forces cause acceleration. If one were to write it as a=HF, where
> H=1/m is the coefficient of compliance (or some other such name) it
> would look better to me.
>
> Someone clever must have written about this. Anyone out there know a
> favorite read on the topic?
>
> Leigh